The report you link to is indeed deeply shocking. But it’s worth reading the hundreds of comments below it. Nearly every one backs Cerrie and says the parents who complained should be ashamed of themselves. And those that don’t get negative ratings. It almost reaffirms my faith in Daily Mail readers.

It sounds shocking, I agree. I would prefer it if the debae focussed on whether she was a good presenter or not. If there are better presenters out there then she shouldn’t be on our TV screens – her disability should be irrelevant in this discussion.

I haven’t seen her presenting so I don’t know how good she is, but it would be tragic if she was just given this job to make a political statement rather than on merit.

Arf!

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/satan-makes-room-for-parents-who-complained-about-disabled-tv-presenter-200902241599/

There is absolutely nothing wrong with Cerrie Burnell’s professionalism. I have very young children (one 20mths, and one just under 4) who adore Cbeebies, so I see Ms. Burnell every day. She’s bubbly, confident, and likeable.

Positive discrimination, in the field of children’s TV presenters, is perfectly defensible – and I write this as someone who is generally against.

I want my kids to be comfortable with disabilities and people of different races. I want them to be colour-blind to ethnicity and without prejudice towards people who are different. Burnell’s missing limb is not discussed – it’s never made into a big issue, it’s just, er, not there.

Also, what Burnell can do with one hand is quite impressive. She’s certainly no slouch making tat out of yoghurt pots.

LFaT,

I haven’t seen her presenting so I don’t know how good she is, but it would be tragic if she was just given this job to make a political statement rather than on merit.

Agreed, but that’s not the point. Cbeebies is educative. What could be more constructive than teaching kids about difference and tolerance (without actually preaching). It’s not political – but constructive,

I applaud the BBC for appointing Burnell.

Nine complaints, not that bad. No matter where you live, or who with, there will always be a few nutters. I of course agree with you 100% but I think this is all a bit truistic.

Gah, you spend most of the article attacking people for discriminating, then say:

I think it’s great the BBC have appointed Cerrie Burnell

Personally, I don’t give a shit. If she’s a good presenter she deserves the job. If she isn’t a good presenter then she doesn’t. Saying it’s “great” to have a disabled presenter is just as discriminatory as saying it’s “terrible”.

Rob Knight,

Get real. I also said something similar. And I have explained my reasons. They’re my kids. My opinions.

I do think it’s great that my kids can see disabled people on TV. I like to hope they’re comfortable with difference. It’s not a guarantee – along with my barely adequate parenting skills, but I hope when they get to school they don’t make someone’s life hell.

But the reason they can see a disabled person on TV is because, in a meritocratic system, a reasonable proportion of TV presenters will be disabled anyway. Having a token disabled person is, I suppose, better than having none, but that’s all. I don’t see why we need to applaud the BBC (or any employer) for just doing what they’re supposed to, which is employ people on merit.

Personally, yes, I think that it’s great that there’s a disabled kids’ TV presenter. But so fucking what? Appointments to those kinds of positions (or, indeed, any position) shouldn’t be made because they expect a round of applause from overjoyed liberals any more than they should not be made because of fear of objections from nutjob Mail readers. We don’t have to take sides, we just have to insist on fairness.

Remember this………………………..still acceptable ?

Peter: Now, Mr. Spigott, I couldn’t help noticing almost at once that you are a one legged person.

Dudley: You noticed that?

Peter: I noticed that, Mr. Spigott. When you have been in the business as long as I have you come to notice these things almost instinctively. Now, Mr. Spigott, you, a one-legged man, are applying for the role of Tarzan — a role which, traditionally, involves the use of a two-legged actor.

Dudley: Correct.

Peter: And yet you, a unidexter, are applying for the role.

Dudley: Right.

Peter: A role for which two legs would seem to be the minimum requirement.

Dudley: Very true.

Peter: Well, Mr. Spigott, need I point out to you where your deficiency lies as regards landing the role?

Dudley: Yes, I think you ought to.

Peter: Need I say with overmuch emphasis that it is in the leg division that you are deficient.

Dudley: The leg division?

Peter: Yes, the leg division, Mr. Spigott. You are deficient in it — to the tune of one. Your right leg I like. I like your right leg. A lovely leg for the role. That’s what I said when I saw you come in. I said ‘A lovely leg for the role.’ I’ve got nothing against your right leg. The trouble is — neither have you. You fall down on your left.

Dudley: You mean it’s inadequate?

Peter: Yes, it’s inadequate, Mr. Spigott. And, to my mind, the British public is not ready for the sight of a one-legged ape-man swinging through the jungly tendrils.

Dudley: I see.

Peter: However, don’t despair. After all, you score over a man with no legs at all. Should a legless man come in here demanding the role, I should have no hesitation in saying ‘Get out. Run away’.

Dudley: So there’s still a chance?

Peter: There is still a very good chance. If we get no two-legged actors in here within the next two months, there is still a very good chance that you’ll land this vital role. Failing two-legged actors, you, a unidexter, are just the sort of person we shall be attempting to contact telephonically.

Dudley: Well… thank you very much.

Peter: So my advice is, to hop on a bus, go home, and sit by your telephone in the hope that we will be getting in touch with you (he shows Dudley out).

Rob Knight,

Can’t you see a difference between a children’s TV presenter and other professions?

Also, as I said, she’s perfectly capable. In fact she’s very good at her job. Maybe in your mythical meritocratic society (where nepotism, racism and class don’t exist) she still got the job…

Can’t you see a difference between a children’s TV presenter and other professions?

Not really, no. If I accepted that they were, I’d say we should be especially careful to ensure that TV presenters are picked on merit and are thus representative of society as a whole rather than being the result of a social engineering campaign from one side or the other.

Maybe in your mythical meritocratic society (where nepotism, racism and class don’t exist) she still got the job…

But she did get the job! That’s the whole point! She got the job because there was a fair process and she was appointed on merit, and all anyone wants to do is turn it into a political issue! I know I’m splitting hairs here, but there is a genuine difference between saying “well done to her for getting the job” and saying “well done to her for being a disabled TV presenter“. The latter suggests that being disabled is a positive qualification for being a presenter, which suggests that it should be a factor in the recruitment process. The only difference between that view and the complainant’s view is the particular side of the debate you come down on. Personally I think it’s none of our business to favour or disfavour people based on their disability.

I think you probably broadly agree, and I probably broadly agree with you, and we’re just disagreeing because it’s an emotive issue and I’ve been a bit blunt. In which case, I apologise. I just think that if we’re against discrimination, we have to be universal about it or admit that we’re not.

Yes, Pete & Dud’s classic ‘One Leg Too Few’ is still acceptable…

…and still utterly hilarious.

There’s nothing wrong, whatsoever, with genuine juxtapositional humour, and that’s the essence of ‘One Leg Too Few’. It contrasts the popular image of Tarzan with notion of a man with one leg applying for the role and works in the same way, and on the same satirical level, as Mel Brook’s use of a black sheriff in ‘Blazing Saddles’.

Its the absurdity of the situation, and in it the character’s reactions in it, that’s funny, i.e. you’re meant to be laughing with Pete & Dud (especially Dud as the bugger could barely keep a straight face at the best of times) not at Dud.

The comment saying it was great was not mine- although of course I agree with it completely. It came from a messageboard.

Nine formal complaints is very bad. One is very bad. As would be one formal complaint about employing anyone from any minority, in this century.

This article is a shortened version of the original, posted at my blog, which my name above links to.

I always thought that people who complained to Ofcom hada propensity to be utter twats.

#2

There should not be a debate on whether she is up to the job, because there are plenty of crap tv presenters in kids’ tv and we don’t have a discussion about whether they’re up to the job. If we had a discussion about it in this case it would be because her disability highlighted to some people a need to single her out and figure out whether she really was good enough or whether they can claim she was employed to be politically correct.

Let’s be honest, its the BBC playing politics. The middle-class, so-called liberal elites have got what they crave, attention for their patronising social commentary. There was no story about a one-armed presenter because British people are very accepting and don’’t care. Its actually, insulting that some people believe it worthy of commenting. They are using tabloid jounalism to create news. They receive hundreds of complaints every day on all sorts of subjects. These few small-minded people have given the BBC social police a chance to make news and create opinion.

Yeah, the girl has one arm, but she’s also young and attractive. Just like the token ethnic faces are either light-skinned, well spoken or camp and sometimes all three. It all reeks of the middle-class so-called liberal elites’ utopian dream. Well, the reality is different and until they have a disfigured presenter in a wheelchair, dribbling saliva, they are talking out of their luvvie arses. I find the constant media obsession with looks, youth and beauty much more of an issue than this non-story. Its also highly damaging to large numbers of mainly young girls who fail to meet the media’s attractiveness level. Over emphasis on token racial and disability representation deliberately hides the underlying failings of the media.

Choosing people because of their disability or the colour of their skin is hugely patronising and discriminatory. Claiming a positive outcome is no defence. The BBC ruling elite want you to believe in equality, but the fact is, the only non-white middle-class people are token presenters or clean the bogs. Positive discrimination is an evil that should be eradicated. Its created a poisonous atmosphere, where minority representation is deemed to have been unearned and where some minorities are more worthy than others.

I do laugh at the people who want their children to grow up “colour blind and without prejudice” from watching TV. How about actually mixing with them? Or is that just for the lower-class chavs? Watching Any Peters on the box is not the same as going to school with hundreds of Somali, but you wouldn’t like that would you?

I do laugh at the people who want their children to grow up “colour blind and without prejudice” from watching TV. How about actually mixing with them?

They do that too. My three-yr old goes to a state nursery with kids from all backgrounds.

You are a bit of a self-righteous tit, sometimes, chavscum.

I can see where this thread is heading. And to be honest, I can’t be arsed with it.

They receive hundreds of complaints every day on all sorts of subjects. These few small-minded people have given the BBC social police a chance to make news and create opinion.

Why couldn’t you have just stopped at “these few small-minded people“? It’s a report from the Mail for Christ’s sake.

“I do laugh at the people who want their children to grow up “colour blind and without prejudice” from watching TV. How about actually mixing with them?”

Who says we don’t? Who says we aren’t from minorities?

Or is that just for the lower-class chavs?

No.

Watching Any Peters on the box is not the same as going to school with hundreds of Somali, but you wouldn’t like that would you?

I wouldn’t mind in the slightest.

“You are a bit of a self-righteous tit, sometimes, chavscum.”

Let’s be honest, its the BBC…

Zzzzzzzzzz…

Chavscum, my dear — have you been hitting the Twat-O-Tron again?

It’s not even home time!

Aaron, what do you mean ‘sometimes’?

Rob Knight: I’d say we should be especially careful to ensure that TV presenters are picked on merit and are thus representative of society as a whole rather than being the result of a social engineering campaign from one side or the other.

Merit is loose concept. What if we define merit as that presenters not only have to be comfortable in front of the TV and funny etc (which, a lot are) but also representative of society? Especially for reasons Aaron mentioned above. There is merit in that argument itself. So it fits the criteria.

Dunno how you can say it should only be on ‘merit’ without understanding it itself is a loose and broad term.

tim f @ 16: Good point.

Fair enough Aaron, you may not fancy taking the bait but I’m game for this one.

Right, Chavscum. Time to put up or STFU.

Item 1.

As far I understand the situation, the young lady in question has:

a) studied drama,
b) worked in the theatre to good reviews,
c) done the usual rounds that all jobbing TV actors/actresses do in the UK (Grange Hill, Eastenders, The Bill)
d) works in a special school in between gigs, and
e) has a four month old daughter of her own.

All of which looks to be very much like the kind of CV that would make her amply qualified for the role of patronising the kiddiewinks in the links between Little Bear Stories and In The Night Garden.

So, before you running off at the mouth with one of your pet political correctness gawn mad stories, why don’t you provide the evidence to show that she didn’t get the job purely on merit…

No?

Didn’t think so…

Item 2.

One of the nice things about Google’s news search is that it tells you when when/how long ago particular pages were first indexed by its spiders, which means its fairly easy to follow the spread of a particular story across the online world and trace it back to its original source…

…which, in this case, turns out to have been that bastion of liberal values, The Daily Mail.

Oh dear, there goes your pet theory straight down the shitter because the Beeb didn’t push this story at all.

In fact, if you bother to read it properly you’ll find that this has come about because the Mail have clearly got one of its work experience scutters trawling the Beeb’s message boards looking for cheap filler.

So, its turns out that its only today, 24 hours after the Mail ran the story, that the Beeb put up its own comments, in its news magazine and not in its main news or entertainment section.

Boy, Chavscum, are you starting to look like a complete dumbass here…

Item 3.

So, the Beeb didn’t start the ball rolling on this story…

..but, lets face it, in the circumstances I don’t think the Beeb could possibly have been faulted if it had initiated the story.

When you consider the kind of crap that get’s thrown at dear old Auntie then I reckon that every once in while its perfectly entirely to hold a situation like this up to public scrutiny as say to the world, in effect…

“Now do you see exactly what kind of cunts we have to put up with!”

So, with all that safely disposed of, what have you for us next?

Are we going back to the old one about the Beeb smuggling homosexual references into the Teletubbies via Tinky Winky’s handbag?

Maybe the Chuckle Brothers is secretly a metaphor for Mao’s Cultural Revolution?

Or perhaps Piggly Wiggly’s a closet Fenian and there’s an as yet unseen episode of Jakers that tells the story of the Irish Potato Famine?

Pray do tell!

OK, I am definitely with Sarah, Aaron and Unity on this one – and I think Unity has just smashed up Chavscum’s anti-bbc anti-pc theory into quite a lot of very little pieces – though Clifford’s points about the messageboard reaction is a good point worth reflecting on!

a short post on this here
http://www.nextleft.org/2009/02/its-political-incorrectness-gone-mad.html

Two things

1. CBeebies does a brilliant job with Something Special and Mr Tumble. Its exactly what it should be doing. Or does anybody think that’s a terrible propagandist liberal conspiracy?

2. Sure, let’s not make too much of it. But perhaps it could be a great turning point too!

Nobody wants to deprive the good people of Middle England a good moan about the way of the world – but here they have said “enough”. So here is only one way to describe these complainants to the BBC. Surely, its political incorrectness gone mad!

The real problem with all of the anti-pc/anti-liberal elite hype is this. It is based on the notion that the question of ‘good’ childrens television can be above politics. That what constitutes ‘good’ childrens television can be something that is culturally nad politically neutral.

While we should certainly refute the idiotic accusations that this woman got her jobb because she is disabled, we should be candid in defending the position that children’s television should be informed by certain values. For example, I would far rather have children exposed to an anti-racist cartoon, than a racist cartoon, even if the entertainmet value of the former was weaker.

Looks like I’ve touched a nerve with some of you. Not sure which embarrasses the Left most, being almost always white, middle-class or their hypocritical attitude to multiculturalism. Yeah, you may give your kids some life experience at the local nursery, but it’s a racing certainty you won’t be sending them to the local ethnic dominated community school. You’ll be hop footing it to the home counties, the countryside or buying into one of the white middle-class metropolitan oasis. I completely agree with putting your kids’ future first, but when you are preaching mass immigration and multiculturalism, you reek of hypocrisy. I might sound self-righteous, but that’s because I’m right.

“I might sound self-righteous, but that’s because I’m right.”

No, you’re sounding self-righteous because you’re denouncing us on the basis of something you’ve just extracted from your behind (we’ve all had children and then moved county to avoid them going to a multiracial school? WTF?).

chavscum

No you sound self-righteous, because you are.

You talk utter garbage. If you think we’re all white, middle class, you’re believing your own bull-shit.

Also, if you’re so right, I’ll make you a challenge. Put up, or fuck off.

Here goes… you said ::

I completely agree with putting your kids’ future first, but when you are preaching mass immigration and multiculturalism, you reek of hypocrisy.

Now find me a single piece I have ever written where I preach this? A single one.

You can’t. Now stop wasting my time and go fuck off.

The real problem with all of the anti-pc/anti-liberal elite hype is this. It is based on the notion that the question of ‘good’ childrens television can be above politics. That what constitutes ‘good’ childrens television can be something that is culturally nad politically neutral.

Not really, Reuben.

This isn’t about cultural and political neutrality, its about certain vested interest groups trying to bend the BBC toward promoting their own preferred monocultural view of Britain plus, in the case of the Daily Mail, a fairly hefty dose of lower-middle class class hatred and a deep-seated desire to try and return Britain to mythical golden age that, if its existed at all, lasted for about 12 months in between the end of rationing and the emergence of Elvis Presley.

I’ve argued this before but I think its worth reiterating.

The BBC serves a very particular and somewhat unique sociological function within the mainstream media inasmuch as, across a range of services, including the news and its children’s programming, it defines what is, in effect a median reference point against which the political and cultural values (and agendas) of other media organisations can be readily assessed.

It’s for that reason that something like Fox News just wouldn’t work over here in anything like the same way as its does in the US, because if set against the BBC its political agenda and editorialising of the news becomes too obvious and too recognisable as propaganda.

Chavscum:

At the last count, the number of different languages spoken at my daughter’s school ran to something around 30-35, and she does go to a local community school, as did my son who’s now doing his A level.

You seem to think that everyone who writes/comments on here lives in some sort of gated community in Islington, which is anything but an accurate reflection of the site’s bloggers or readership.

Blimey, that chavscum is a right cock, isn’t he?

He’s one of those dicks who pretends to idolise the working class, despite assuming they’re all right wing racist fuckwits, reckons that the only reason people ever get annoyed is because someone “touched a nerve” – ignoring the fact that most people get pretty pissed off to have an ignorant loudmouthed c**t braying bollocks at them all day – and seems utterly unable to own up when his gobshite nonsense is exposed for what it is.

Unity: This isn’t about cultural and political neutrality, its about certain vested interest groups trying to bend the BBC toward promoting their own preferred monocultural view of Britain plus, in the case of the Daily Mail, a fairly hefty dose of lower-middle class class hatred and a deep-seated desire to try and return Britain to mythical golden age that, if its existed at all, lasted for about 12 months in between the end of rationing and the emergence of Elvis Presley.

To a certain extent you are right. But I think their is a distinction to be made between what these groups are actually doing – which you quite accurately describe – and the way they see themselves and the enterpirse in which they are engaged.

Of what they are doing is necessarily political. This indeed is implied by comment before that ‘what constitutes ‘good’ childrens television can be something that is culturally nad politically neutral.’

What i was referring to was their discourse.

I think she’s a very good presenter, but shouldn’t be on kids’ TV.
Mind you, that’s because kids shouldn’t watch TV at all. They should be learning how to decline Attic Greek pronouns or else be up chimneys.

Crumbs, the whole country’s going up shit creek, no bugger knows what a paddle looks like let alone where to find one, and folk are worrying about an eminently capable TV link person who happens to be short of an arm. If the rumour-mill was ever to be believed then in the ‘Golden age’ of kids’ TV, never mind armless, there were plenty of legless presenters, let alone those with very dodgy predilections.

Never mind a few disgruntled punters I think Cerrie Burnell should worry far more about the personal cost of working in the sinister world of kids TV.

Didn’t Cheggers hit the bottle ?
Mark Speight killed himself.
Blue Peter presenter Peter Duncan was a (soft) porn actor, before drifting into oblivion.

It doesn’t matter who you are – kids TV exacts a high price for inanely grinning into the camera all day while churning out naff sripts and el-cheapo sets.
There’s something inherently bizarre about the whole thing.

I know my skin colour is slightly wheatish, but I didn’t realise I’d become white!
thanks for letting me know chavscum

I might sound self-righteous, but that’s because I’m right.

ahh, gotta love pompous rightwingers who get pwned and then come back with these lines.

I completely agree with putting your kids’ future first, but when you are preaching mass immigration and multiculturalism, you reek of hypocrisy.

Not really, but since your intelligence is demonstrably so low anyway, I’m not going to bother even rising to the bait.

Blue Peter presenter Peter Duncan was a (soft) porn actor, before drifting into oblivion.

Does becoming the UK’s Chief Scout count as oblivion?

“Nothing to be scared of kids, she’s ‘armless”

Sorry, I couldn’t resist.

Just in case anybody didn’t notice that tonight’s episode of ‘EastEnders’ featured an all-Black cast the BBC have kindly pointed it out for us.

I actually watched the episode and hadn’t noticed as I don’t generally go in for ethnic headcounting, and since nobody else seems to have noticed either I suspect this says more about the public’s general acceptance of Black faces on TV than the BBC’s token gesture does.

I was readin the “sun” newspaper last night when i came across the cbeebies presenter, i was shocked and discusted that parents were complaing about that how is was giving there children nigthmares its discusting. To me the parents arnt being very good parents as they should explain to the children why she is like this and not say get her off the t.v. Shocked by this i am its terriable!!! I feel sorry for the poor girl how will she feel!!

Shatterface

Ahh interesting you had’t noticed the all black cast on Eastenders, I’m still wondering if my kids will comment on the cbeebies presenter, maybe they haven’ t noticed!!

Elizabeth

Unity, you’ve made the mistake of not liking my post, but not reading it properly. Perhaps, I did not articulate it very well. I have no problem with her or her abilities. My issue is with the people who hijack and patronise her disability to pursue their social agenda.

I repeat “Positive discrimination is an evil that should be eradicated. Its created a poisonous atmosphere, where minority representation is deemed to have been unearned and where some minorities are more worthy than others.”

Sorry, your explanation for the origin of the story does not wash. If the Mail, as you guess, got the story from BBC forums, then the story was already leaked.
However, I accept I might have over-egged that the BBC were manipulating the story. You seem to credit tabloid journalists with more investigative ability than I do.

“This isn’t about cultural and political neutrality, its about certain vested interest groups trying to bend the BBC toward promoting their own preferred monocultural view of Britain plus, in the case of the Daily Mail, a fairly hefty dose of lower-middle class class hatred and a deep-seated desire to try and return Britain to mythical golden age that, if its existed at all, lasted for about 12 months in between the end of rationing and the emergence of Elvis Presley.”

Who has said this? This is just typical of leftie debate. You just can’t take any criticism of your own toys, you have to deliberately misinterpret any opposition as extreme. This is just laziness and prevents you ever questioning your own beliefs. It’s a fundamentalist approach to politics.

My views on the Left’s hypocrisy towards the education of their own children and how it
conflicts with their propagation of mass immigration and multi-culturalism will not cover all examples. However, the pattern in London is there for all to see and the political examples are well documented. My socialist neighbours send their kids to private school. My aunt works in an inner London school in a catchment area that contains endless left-wing luvvies, politicians, mediaites. She has not one English child in her class. Ok, you can argue that the nearby high achieving schools are also multi-cultural – such is the nature and over-whelming immigration of the last 15yrs. However, they are only minority multi-cultural. It gives the hypocrites the ability to say they are cosmopolitan. Just not too cosmopolitan or even the right kind of cosmopolitan, eh Jon Cruddas? My brother-in-law’s school went from 30% ethnic to 85% in less than 10yrs. Segregation is the norm. Why delude yourself its not?

Ok Aaron. I take it all back. You are against mass immigration and multi-culturalist policies.

Interesting the BBC sought to promote a black only edition of Eastenders, which nobody would have noticed anyway, and which just re-enforces my earlier points about those that run the BBC. Or did the Daily Mail make it up?

For anyone who followed her story, something you might find interesting: http://samedifference1.com/2009/03/19/cerrie-burnell-investigates-disability-prejudice-in-the-media/